* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
@ 2006-09-20 13:09 ` Steev Klimaszewski
2006-09-20 13:21 ` Steev Klimaszewski
2006-09-20 13:22 ` Simon Stelling
2006-09-20 13:36 ` Krzysiek Pawlik
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Steev Klimaszewski @ 2006-09-20 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
>
<snip>
I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFET2j1c+EtXTHkJcRAladAJ9r8VK6WUzjv9Pnextkh8b4N6xPFQCfX+pW
7EBxySyIomhsSDEL7noSFig=
=6LAs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 13:09 ` Steev Klimaszewski
@ 2006-09-20 13:21 ` Steev Klimaszewski
2006-09-20 13:22 ` Simon Stelling
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Steev Klimaszewski @ 2006-09-20 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>
>>>
> <snip>
> I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
And to expand, per blubb's request, all you are doing is moving
/usr/portage/licenses out somewhere else on the filesystem. Now instead
of one file per license, I need a minimum of 5 - the license ebuild,
metadata, changelog, manifest and digest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFEUBP1c+EtXTHkJcRAjreAJ0Wa1Jj5kmfd4iprrDUTDUbqORm8gCfbyV1
Ee8/WXmCWpMES+9qHjjUxWs=
=IcFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 13:09 ` Steev Klimaszewski
2006-09-20 13:21 ` Steev Klimaszewski
@ 2006-09-20 13:22 ` Simon Stelling
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Simon Stelling @ 2006-09-20 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
Which non-issue in particular?
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
2006-09-20 13:09 ` Steev Klimaszewski
@ 2006-09-20 13:36 ` Krzysiek Pawlik
2006-09-20 13:51 ` Simon Stelling
2006-09-20 13:53 ` Brian Harring
2006-09-20 14:05 ` Michael Cummings
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Krzysiek Pawlik @ 2006-09-20 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]
Simon Stelling wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
I like the idea with one exception:
> Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a package
> (and only these) should be package.masked by default with a header like
> the following:
>
> ::
>
> # Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org (20 Sep 2006)
> # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered
> # legally binding.
> # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms.
> txt-licenses/wierd-license
Why not make the ebuild ask for confirmation? Would work with versioned licenses
(for example: txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.1 and
txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.999 - both would require ACK). Breaks portage in a
way it's interactive, but it's already happening in few ebuilds
(eutils.eclass::check_license()).
--
Krzysiek Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xBC555551
desktop-misc, x86, java, apache, ppc...
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 13:36 ` Krzysiek Pawlik
@ 2006-09-20 13:51 ` Simon Stelling
2006-09-20 13:53 ` Brian Harring
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Simon Stelling @ 2006-09-20 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
>> # Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org (20 Sep 2006)
>> # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered
>> # legally binding.
>> # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms.
>> txt-licenses/wierd-license
>
> Why not make the ebuild ask for confirmation? Would work with versioned licenses
> (for example: txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.1 and
> txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.999 - both would require ACK). Breaks portage in a
> way it's interactive, but it's already happening in few ebuilds
> (eutils.eclass::check_license()).
Even assuming you have multiple versions of such a license, the user can
still unmask specific versions in case he really agrees with one version
but not another. If he unmasks just the package, then you can take that
as a "he's fine with all of them". The reasoning for doing it this way
is that merges should really be non-interactive wherever possible. Sure,
there are a few exeptions, but they should be kept as rarely as
possible, and avoiding it IS possible in this case.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 13:36 ` Krzysiek Pawlik
2006-09-20 13:51 ` Simon Stelling
@ 2006-09-20 13:53 ` Brian Harring
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Brian Harring @ 2006-09-20 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1642 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:36:07PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> I like the idea with one exception:
>
> > Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a package
> > (and only these) should be package.masked by default with a header like
> > the following:
> >
> > ::
> >
> > # Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org (20 Sep 2006)
> > # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered
> > # legally binding.
> > # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms.
> > txt-licenses/wierd-license
>
> Why not make the ebuild ask for confirmation? Would work with versioned licenses
> (for example: txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.1 and
> txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.999 - both would require ACK). Breaks portage in a
> way it's interactive, but it's already happening in few ebuilds
> (eutils.eclass::check_license()).
Thats one of the basic flaws with this proposal; that data isn't
easily represented to the front end code, thus it makes doing
proper eula confirmation that much harder.
Also, yes, license is left behind, but hacking up the front end code
to walk all deps trying to identify license deps (instead of just
using the license metadata key) is pretty fugly in comparison to what
glep23 proposed.
Further... glep23 is simple, and there already; data is ready to go,
all that is required is a patch.
So... write a patch (this isn't that hard), or mangle the 24k ebuilds
in the tree while losing capabilities... ;)
~harring
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
2006-09-20 13:09 ` Steev Klimaszewski
2006-09-20 13:36 ` Krzysiek Pawlik
@ 2006-09-20 14:05 ` Michael Cummings
2006-09-20 16:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2006-09-20 16:43 ` Kevin F. Quinn
2006-09-20 14:29 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Michael Cummings @ 2006-09-20 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in
> the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to
> ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no version
> specified.
This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in
the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again?
We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not
just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable for allowed
licenses and block based on that?
--
-----o()o----------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings | #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev | on irc.freenode.net
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-----o()o----------------------------------------------
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 14:05 ` Michael Cummings
@ 2006-09-20 16:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2006-09-20 16:43 ` Kevin F. Quinn
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2006-09-20 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Michael Cummings wrote:
> This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in
> the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again?
> We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not
> just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable for allowed
> licenses and block based on that?
>
+1
--
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 14:05 ` Michael Cummings
2006-09-20 16:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
@ 2006-09-20 16:43 ` Kevin F. Quinn
2006-09-20 17:08 ` Mike Frysinger
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Kevin F. Quinn @ 2006-09-20 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 935 bytes --]
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:05:00 -0400
Michael Cummings <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
> > Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a
> > package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install
> > the license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version
> > shall be 1 if there is no version specified.
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in
> the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that
> again?
Plus the copies in /usr/share/doc.
> We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds,
> why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable
> for allowed licenses and block based on that?
Sounds good enough to me. Perhaps two variables; ALLOW_LICENSES and
DENY_LICENSES (with wildcard support).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-20 14:05 ` Michael Cummings
@ 2006-09-20 14:29 ` Duncan
2006-09-20 15:24 ` [gentoo-dev] " Luca Barbato
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2006-09-20 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org> posted 451127AB.4060202@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200:
> Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a
> package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the
> license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be
> 1 if there is no version specified.
>
> There will also be a bunch of meta-packages: At least
>
> * ``txt-licenses/osi-disapproved-licenses``, *
> ``txt-licenses/fsf-disapproved-licenses``, and *
> ``txt-licenses/gpl-incompatible-licenses``
>
> should exist and be a dependency of
> all licenses that possess the respective attribute.
>
> Users can then assure that they do not implicitly agree with a license
> they would not agree with explicitly by masking the license's package.
> If they only want to accept packages that are e.g. approved by the FSF,
> they can simply mask the ``txt-licenses/fsf-disapproved`` package.
I like the idea, but this part won't work as is, will it?
Does/can portage mask dependencies when a metapackage is masked? Other
than here, would that even be desired? If so, how deep does it go?
Obviously we can't very well mask the glibc dependency, for instance (tho
the Gentoo BSD and OSX folks might not think that sounds so unreasonable
=8^).
If dependencies aren't auto-masked as well, there goes your nice easy
fsf-disapproved masking!
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-20 14:29 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
@ 2006-09-20 15:24 ` Luca Barbato
2006-09-20 16:18 ` Mike Frysinger
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Luca Barbato @ 2006-09-20 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Simon Stelling wrote:
> GLEP: 52
I don't like it: too complex, glep 23 is fine.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-20 15:24 ` [gentoo-dev] " Luca Barbato
@ 2006-09-20 16:18 ` Mike Frysinger
2006-09-20 16:36 ` Stephen Bennett
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Mike Frysinger @ 2006-09-20 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:36, Simon Stelling wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
why not just implement GLEP 23
-mike
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-20 16:18 ` Mike Frysinger
@ 2006-09-20 16:36 ` Stephen Bennett
2006-09-20 17:34 ` Josh Saddler
2006-09-24 21:37 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
8 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Bennett @ 2006-09-20 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200
Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
It seems to me to be an attempt to move what is obviously the package
manager's job into the tree, and making it far more complex than it
needs to be in the process. The necessary metadata is already in
ebuilds, and has even been changed to a more depend-like syntax for
exactly the purpose of making license handling easier; why duplicate it
in so many places?
The necessary package manager support isn't even all that difficult, so
"it's not yet been implemented" seems like a poor excuse for offloading
the work onto every single developer instead.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-20 16:36 ` Stephen Bennett
@ 2006-09-20 17:34 ` Josh Saddler
2006-09-24 21:37 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
8 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Josh Saddler @ 2006-09-20 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> Thanks in advance!
While this has a novel approach to the problem (at least, I haven't seen
anything else that tries to solve the LICENSE issue this way), the existing GLEP
23 really does have a much simpler solution. And in this case, the KISS
principle should apply. Rather than adding more stuff to ebuilds or multiple new
directories to the user's system, it's a lot easier to just use existing LICENSE
info and a single line in make.conf to specify what's allowed.
'Course, easier and simpler still don't mean that it's been done yet. *shrug*
IIRC, the other two alternative package managers have implemented it in some
form -- why not take a look at how they did it to see if there are any good
technical solutions (or ideas) present. Or maybe offer a bounty of some sort to
the first person that comes up with the patch for Portage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFEXuSrsJQqN81j74RAmm5AJ938b0VYR7cylytoJGY3gBi7Uiy7QCgiJjq
79oDXSqIrYvL/o7SWxcmotA=
=AeFg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
2006-09-20 11:36 [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited Simon Stelling
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-20 17:34 ` Josh Saddler
@ 2006-09-24 21:37 ` Ryan Hill
8 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ryan Hill @ 2006-09-24 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 257 bytes --]
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> Thanks in advance!
I think I agree with the others. Excellent idea though; thanks for
giving this issue your attention.
--de.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread